[ SECRET POST #2756 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2756 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 076 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 3 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets (random images from what appears to be one spammy anon) ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: But what are the other tags on those fics?

[nyxelestia]

True, but mistagging is kind of a separate problem from overtagging. If I see a fluff tag in a sea of tags that indicate non-fluff story elements, I will assume that they are all in the story - and thus, none of them accurately indicate the nature of the story at large, but merely scenes/content within the story.

Now, if someone tried to tag their story with fluff fic instead of just fluff as one of many content tags, then that's different - fluff fic implies super-happy story with limited complexity or character development, and to apply that to complicated story is less "covering all bases" and more "outright misleading, whether it's intended or not".

Definitely love how you made your point, though - for a second I thought I was reading Shakespearean quotes or something, which in itself is an example of why hardline descriptivism isn't the best way to go, either. Technically, Shakespearean English is just as Modern English as whatever we spew out on the Internet. But it's so different and difficult to understand that many people genuinely assume it's Middle or Old English, which are actually separate - if preceding - languages from Modern English.